Historia

A Publication of the Epsilon Mu Chapter of Phi Alpha Theta

& the Eastern Illinois University
History Department

Volume 24
2015

Editors:
Taylor Coffman Hailey Perry
Daniel Eppel Courtney Sage
Megan Kessler Thomas Travis
Emily McInerney Jack Wagner
Andrea Morgan Taylor Yangas
Faculty Advisor:
Dr. Michael Shirley

Letter from the Editors

We, the editors of this first completely electronic edition of Historia, would like to thank
Eastern Illinois University and the wonderfull faculty and students that made this edition possible.
In these pages you will find a selection of the fine work produced by the students of this University
from a multitude of courses with subjects ranging from the ancient Byzintine Empire to Michelle
Obama.
We had a record number of submissions this year, but we believe that we have condensed
it down to the best twenty. Once again, thank you to everyone who submitted their papers for
publication, there were many good papers, and we are sorry that we could not publish more.
Although this issue is not in a print edition, students should still be proud to have been selected for
publication. Historia will continue the traditon of showcasing some of the best student-written,
student-edited historical papers.
We hope you enjoy the 2015 edition of Historia!
Sincerely,
The Editors

1
 Table of Contents
Mattoon, Illinois’s Involvement in WWI as Told
Through The Daily Journal-Gazette, 1917-1918 4
Mark Stanford

A History of Freeburg in the First World War:

As Told by the Freeburg Tribune 17
Daniel Eppel

The Lion and the Eagle:

Great Britain and the American Civil War 27
Thomas Travis

Crossing Borders Using Class, Femininity, and Gender:

How Northern Women Spies Shortened the American Civil War 33
Emily McInerney

The Art of War: A Study of Japanese POW Artwork 38

Rachael Sapp

The Trojan War in Greek Art 51

Taylor Yangas

The Origins of the Byzantine Empire:

Anachronism and Evolution in Modern Historiography 59
Joseph D. Wagner

The Evolution of the Automobile Industry:

Innovations of a Few and Subsequent Oligopoly Formation 67
Austin Glan

Brigham Young’s Forest Farmhouse:

Space and Power in 19th Century Agricultural Utah 72
Alex Stromberg

Catholic Anti-Semitism, the Holocaust, and Pope Pius XII:

Hitler’s Pope or Maligned Savior? 89
Michael D. Olson
Sexual Uses of Myth as the Basis for a Male-Dominated Society 96
Jay Ryan Lawler Jr.

Seneca Falls Convention: The Beginning of the Women’s Rights Movement 102
Or a “Conversation older than the Nation itself”?
Andrea Morgan

2
A Comparison of Michelle Obama and Nancy Reagan 110
Courtney Sage

Angels Amid a Sea of Blood: 114

The Experience of Catholic Sister Nurses in the American Civil War
Megan Kessler

Moving Mountains?: 119

Bernardine Dohrn and the Women of the Weather Underground
Mattie Korneta

Prostitution and Police: The Great Social Evil in Chicago 125

Kimberly Jones

Review of: Iron Curtain the Crushing of Eastern Europe 1944-1956 133
by Anne Applebaum
Courtney Sage

Review of: The Origin of Satan: 135

How Christians Demonized Jews, Pagans, and Heretics by Elaine Pagels
Quentin Spannagel

Review of: A Newfound, Ancient Perspective of Rhythm in Greek Music 139

By Thomas J. Mathiesen
Helen Pleuka

Review of: Manifest Manhood and the Antebellum American Empire 142
by Amy S. Greenberg
Megan Kessler

3
The Origins of the Byzantine Empire: Anachronism and Evolution in Modern
Historiography

Joseph D. Wagner

Introduction
The modern understanding of the Byzantine Empire, the Roman Empire, which survived
in Eastern Europe for over a thousand years, is a fallacy. There is no doubt that the Byzantines
existed or that their empire occupied a place in the pantheon of world power. The issue under
consideration is not so much when the Byzantine Empire began, but rather when this evolution of
the Roman Empire first took place and how modern scholars view Byzantine origins. The term
Byzantine Empire is an anachronism because what modern historiography calls “the Byzantines”
never existed. Rather, these people considered themselves Roman even until the collapse of their
empire in 1453 CE.
This is relevant in today’s historiography for many reasons, among them because the
Byzantine have not been studied with as much vigor as compared to their Greek and Roman
ancestors. This is also an important historical issue because of a recent book detailing how the
Byzantines dealt with their neighbors over the centuries. Edward Luttwak, a former political
advisor and Johns Hopkins-trained historian, argued in his 2009 book The Grand Strategy of the
Byzantine Empire that the Byzantines were skilled diplomats, using money and land transfers to
keep invading armies at bay.279 Luttwak proceeded to question whether these same strategies could
be applied elsewhere; for example, in the United States. There are three schools of thought that
rise from the relevant historiography: The Continuity School, the Discontinuity School, and the
Evolution School. All three schools of thought will be discussed with due reference to their authors
after an explanation of methodology.
Methodology
The origins of the Byzantine Empire and its civilization reach back deep into the Greek
civilization, the Roman political and legal system, and the Christian religion. Through the fusion
of these three ideas was born the modern notion of the Byzantine Empire. Though modern
historiography may refer to this Empire or civilization as “Byzantine,” the “Byzantines”
themselves never called themselves anything but “Romans” until well into the fourteenth century,
and only then calling themselves “Greeks.”280 But where have modern historians stood on
recounting the past of the “Byzantines?” Where does the narrative generally start and where does
it end? Several historians of the past fifteen-hundred years have tried to answer this question,
beginning as early as the Greek philosophers of the sixth century Before the Common Era (BCE),
going all the way to 1917 of the common era (CE) with the fall of the Romanov Dynasty, the
supposed “Third Rome” of the Russians.
For the purposes of this paper, it will be expedient to begin with the formation of the Roman
imperial system under the Emperor Octavian Augustus in 31 BCE going all the way to the fall of
the city of Constantinople on May 29, 1453 CE. These dates were chosen for two reasons: first,
these dates establish basic chronological parameters for looking at the Roman political and legal

279
Edward N. Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009),
1-3.
280
Colin Wells, Sailing from Byzantium: How a Lost Empire Shaped the World (New York: Delacorte Press, 2007),
26.

59
system and the introduction of the Christian religion into this system; second, a paper of this scope
can only deal with certain thematic parameters, such as, politics, religion, ideology, language, and
culture. It was necessary to bookend this paper between 31 BCE and 1453 CE to do justice to each
of the three schools of thought and view the thematic parameters in the light of how these historians
have dealt with the issue of Byzantine political, cultural, and religious formation.
The Continuity School
The beginning of historiography on this subject can be traced back to Procopius, the court
historian for the Emperor Justinian in the sixth century C.E. In his book, The Secret History,
Procopius argues immediately after the death of Justinian in 565, the people in the eastern half of
the Empire still considered themselves “Roman.” For Procopius, the Roman Empire simply
continued on, governing from a different location.281 The idea of Roman continuity in the eastern
half of its realm travelled all the way to modern times. Edward Gibbon’s magnum opus The
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is a classic in the field of professional history.282 Though
his analyses are considered outdated by contemporary standards of historiography, his work is still
consulted as a serious work of scholarship.
Gibbon can be seen as the father of the Continuity School, a school which embodies the
argument that the Roman Empire, after Constantine moved the capital of his empire east to the
Greek city of Byzantium, continued on for more than a thousand years, finally ending in 1453 with
the fall of the city of Constantinople. Gibbon speaks of the history of the Roman Empire continuing
in the East. Gibbon also discusses the rise of Charlemagne saying, though, that his empire was a
German empire, not the reassumption of Rome in the west.283 The next author in the Continuity
School wrote in the mid-eighteenth century. Lord Mahon, a military historian, wrote The Life of
Belisarius, the primary general under Justinian. Mahon argues that as Greek ousted Latin as the
primary language of the Empire, the people still considered themselves Roman, not Greek or
Byzantine, because they considered themselves Rome’s heirs.284
The Continuity School continued throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,
arriving in the twentieth century with a renewed sense of scholarship. The prominent Byzantinists
Norman Baynes and Henry Moss argued that when the Emperor Constantine moved the capital of
the Empire east and began caring for the Christian Church, the old Rome of the Caesars simply
continued on in a different location with a new religion, though the adoption of Christianity as the
official state religion would not happen for another seven decades.285 One of the more recent books
on the subject came out in 1984, Deno John Geanakoplos’s Byzantium: Church, Society, and
Civilization Seen through Contemporary Eyes. Genankoplos, a trained historian in the field of
Byzantine studies, argued that Constantine was inspired by the Emperor Diocletian’s reforms to
unify the Empire under one system of government and religion in a new capital. These reforms,
though, did not spell an end to the Roman Empire and the start of a new Empire. Rather, it was

281
Procopius, The Secret History (New York: Penguin, 2007), vii. While Justinian is not necessarily explicit on this
point, he never uses the term “Byzantine” to describe the Roman Empire in the East. Occasionally, he will describe
the Empire as “Eastern.” See Ibid., 98.
282
Edward Gibbon, History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Abridged Edition (New York:
Penguin, 2000).
283
Ibid., 3.
284
Lord Mahon, The Life of Belisarius (London: John Murray, 1848), 5.
285
Norman H. Baynes and H. St.L.B. Moss, eds., Byzantium: An Introduction to East Roman Civilization (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1949), 29.

60
simply a matter of taking the existing Empire, reforming its infrastructure, and moving the
capital.286
All of these authors focused on four main themes: The political, religious, cultural, and
linguistic. While all of these are certainly the main players in the argument of when and if the
Byzantine Empire began, we cannot limit ourselves to these four thematic parameters. Historians
of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries understood that more was required than just
looking at the political, religious, and linguistic parameters. Other historians came along and
looked at such things as psychology, culture, art, architecture, and ideological. Again, while there
were no explicit arguments going on in the historiography on this topic, there was a tacit counter-
argument that emerged in the 1890s.
The Discontinuity School
The Discontinuity School began under the aegis of Charles Oman. Though not a trained
historian in any sense of the word, he argued that Constantine moved the capital of the Empire east
for the explicit purpose of founding a new empire, the Byzantine Empire. 287 Oman’s argument is
tacit at best, making one wonder what Constantine really thought when he moved the capital.
Oman does not answer this, nor does he provide any evidence to suggest one argument over the
other. In the years that followed, Paul Van Den Ven, a professor of history at Princeton University,
argued in his article “When did the Byzantine Empire and Civilization Come into Being?” that
once Constantine adopted Christianity as the predominant state religion, this spelled a policy shift
from former Roman practices, thus ushering in a new era in world politics. The fact that
Constantinople, founded specifically for the Christian religion, was established, this is the deciding
factor in the creation of a new empire.288
The Discontinuity School was not necessarily accepted within academia for several
decades. Once it reemerged, the scene shifted to an economic focus. Glanville Downey, a professor
of classics at Indiana University, argued that because of Justinian’s love of monumental building,
the economy became strained. Coupled with the Plague of 542 and Justinian’s new law codes,
these events spelled the end of Roman Empire.289 The economic and institutional theme was taken
up again by Robert Lopez in 1978 with his book Byzantium and the World around it: Economic
and Institutional Relations. Lopez argued that because of Justinian’s need to be remembered, his
reforms brought about the creation of a new empire.290
The popular historian and travel writer John Julius Norwich argued in his 1989 book
Byzantium: The Early Centuries that because of Constantine’s reforms and moving the capital of
the Empire east, Constantine inaugurated a new era in the life of the Roman Empire, one that
would mean the end of Rome with its legacy taken up by the Byzantine Empire. Again, the
religious theme comes back into play with Norwich arguing that because Constantine founded
Constantinople as a Christian city, this act spelled the death of the Roman Empire and the birth of
the Byzantine Empire.291

286
Deno John Geanakoplos, Byzantium: Church, Society, and Civilization Seen through Contemporary Eyes
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 1.
287
Charles Oman, The Byzantine Empire (Yardley, PA: Westholme, 2009), 28.
288
Paul Van Den Ven, “When Did the Byzantine Empire and Civilization Come into Being?” Annual Report of the
American Historical Association for the Year 1916 I (1919): 308.
289
Glanville Downey, “Justinian as Builder,” The Art Bulletin 32, no. 4 (December 1950): 262,
http://www/jstor.org/stable/3047311 (accessed December 2, 2014).
290
Robert Lopez, Byzantium and the World around it: Economic and Institutional Relations (London: Variorum
Reprints, 1978), 447.
291
John Julius Norwich, Byzantium: The Early Centuries (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1989), 67.

61
 The Discontinuity School gained more traction in the 1990s with Warren Treadgold’s A
History of the Byzantine State and Society. Treadgold, professor of Byzantine History at St. Louis
University, argues the origins of the Byzantine Empire can be traced back to Diocletian’s
formation of the tetrarchy, the division of the Empire into four distinct units.292 Diocletian divided
the Empire first into two distinct parts, a western half and an eastern half. He subsequently moved
his capital east because he recognized the economic and cultural wealth in that part of the Empire.
Once this break between the east and the west was made, the split became permanent, not just
politically and economically, but also culturally.293 Walter Kaegi keeps to this argument in his
2004 book Heraclius: Emperor of Byzantium. Kaegi, though, argues that Heraclius, the emperor
in the seventh century, was the founder of the Byzantine Empire because he chose to be crowned
Emperor in an exclusively religious ceremony while placing his reign under the protection of the
Mother of God, Mary.294 Kaegi argues that this act of religious devotion, taken from the Greek
Christian culture that now pervaded the eastern half of the Empire, is the moment when the
Byzantine Empire came into existence.
The Evolution School
The Discontinuity School and the Continuity School are still going strong in the field of
Byzantine historiography, but the faults with these schools are they either give a romantic view of
a Rome that never fell or contend that there is a clearly definable date for the end of the Roman
Empire and start of the Byzantine Empire, respectively. Neither of these schools fully understood
that, while there may be a clear end to one empire and the clear beginning to another, the issue at
stake is far too complicated for simple answers. The historiography on this issue is reflective of
the increase in understanding of who the Romans were and who the Byzantines were. In addition,
scholars, both professional and amateur, have been learning alongside their audience, especially
over the last twenty years or so. For example: The Continuity School argues that there may have
been a slight shift in emphasis in the Roman Empire to bring about a Byzantine era, they argue
that Rome did not fall until 1453. Whereas the Discontinuity School argues for a clear end of Rome
and a clear beginning of Byzantium, though where one ends and the other begins is still debated.
The soil of Medieval studies was fertile for a harvest of new ideas. In the early twenty-first
century, two scholars both planted seeds that bore much fruit. Averil Cameron and Sarolta Takács
both began a new school of thought that will shape Late Antique and proto-Byzantine studies for
generations to come. Instead of relying on former modes of thought to convey ideas within this
field, both began to look objective at the ontology of Roman-ness and Byzantine-ness, looking at
political and religious ideologies in a new light. This advent of fresh scholarship brought about the
Evolution School. This third and new school argues that Byzantium was the direct heir of Rome,
but does not argue that Rome never fell. The Evolution School argues Rome ended and Byzantium
began, but several themes survived from one empire into the other.
Cameron argues in her 2006 book The Byzantines that Rome did not necessarily end and
Byzantium did not necessarily begin. Rather, she argues, there was a gentle evolution between
Rome that segued into Byzantium.295 When metamorphosis occurred, though, Cameron does not
answer definitively. While the Roman Empire may have fallen in 476 C.E. as she observes, the
Byzantine Empire did not just pick up where Rome left off; the Byzantine Empire came into being
slowly. She says it is far too difficult to answer the question of when the Byzantine Empire began.

292
Warren Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997), 14.
293
Ibid.
294
Walter Kaegi, Heraclius: Emperor of Byzantium (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 259.
295
Averil Cameron, The Byzantines (Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, 2006), 20.

62
Instead, Sarolta Takács answered that question three years later with her book The Construction
of Authority in Ancient Rome and Byzantium: The Rhetoric of Empire. Takács argues that the
evolution between Rome and Byzantium took place between the reigns of Justinian in the late sixth
century and Heraclius in early seventh century.296
Takács’s argument is the best argument so far in the field because she does not claim
Rome lasted until 1453, neither does she argue that Rome totally died. Instead, she claims that
Rome ended in spirit and Byzantine took this spirit in the guise of certain political ideologies like
Pater patriae, the Father of Country, to perpetuate their legitimate claim to be Rome’s descendant.
If there could be an end to Rome and the start of Byzantium, Takács argues that the Roman Empire
ended under Justinian and the Byzantine Empire started under Heraclius about 45 years later. She
bases her argument on Justinian being the last culturally Latin emperor, speaking Latin as his first
language and thinking in a Western mindset. Heraclius was the first Byzantine Emperor because
he was crowned emperor in an exclusively religious ceremony in Hagia Sophia, using the, by now,
firmly established Greek-Byzantine rite of Christianity in a liturgical ceremony, placing his reign
under the protection of the Mother of God. 297
Takács’s argument is and will be the trendsetter for future scholarship in the field of Late
Antique and proto-Byzantine studies. Taking Cameron’s ideas of evolution to the next logical
level, Takács will be read for years as the new paradigm in understanding Roman-ness and
Byzantine-ness and how these themes translate into political thoughts of what their empires were.
Takács’s does include the Carolingian “Holy, Roman, Empire” in her analysis. She does not argue
that Charlemagne’s empire is necessarily Rome’s direct descendant, but she includes it because of
the close relationship that existed between the Roman Church and Charlemagne’s loose
confederation of German states. This is a valuable contribution to Byzantine studies because it
shows how multiple powers were claiming legitimate connections with Rome to substantiate their
own claims to power. Byzantium, though, is the legitimate successor because of the direct links
between Constantine and Heraclius.
Some would argue that Takács fits more into the Discontinuity School since she claims an
end to one empire and the beginning of another. The political ideology of Pater patriae, though,
is the tie that binds the two empires together, linking both of them without claiming that Byzantium
is the same as Rome. Takács understands this subtlety and takes into consideration the political
and ideological legacy without becoming alienated by the fallacy of Rome falling in 1453. With
all of this said, more research will have to be done into the idea of Moscow’s claims of being a
“Third Rome.” John Meyendorff, a priest of the Orthodox Church in America and a trained
historian, has already explored this concept with his 2003 book Rome, Constantinople, Moscow:
Historical and Theological Studies.298 It will be beneficial to many academic fields, though, if
someone could use Takács’s methodology and apply it to how the tsars commandeered the Roman
and Byzantine legacy to legitimate their own claims of a Roman-Byzantine legacy.
Historical Background
The time has come for a new history of the origins of the Byzantine Empire. These origins
explicitly begin with the formation of the Roman Empire under the emperor Octavian, running
throughout the life of the Roman Empire to Hadrian, a hellenophile, to Diocletian’s tetrarchy, and

296
Sarolta A. Takács, The Construction of Authority in Ancient Rome and Byzantium: The Rhetoric of Empire (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), xx.
297
Ibid., 129.
298
See: John Meyendorff, Rome, Constantinople, Moscow: Historical and Theological Studies (Crestwood, NY:
SVS Press, 2003).

63
to Constantine’s adoption of Christianity as the predominant state religion when he moved the
capital of the Empire east to the ancient Greek city of Byzantium. This continued through the
adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Empire in 395 C.E. under Theodosius to the
end of the Roman Empire under Justinian. For a period of forty-five years there was a gap between
Rome and Byzantium with a series of emperors who did not know how to administer the
government, finally culminating with reign of Emperor Heraclius, the first Byzantine Emperor,
when he was crowned in a religious ceremony in Hagia Sophia, the chief church of the Byzantine
Empire. While some scholars may take issue with these milestones and dates, this is merely a broad
survey of the end of one empire evolving into the beginning of another. Therefore, more work will
inevitably have to be done to understand both Empires, but what follows is hopefully the start of
further examinations into this field.
The Roman Empire began under the conquering hand of Octavian, the nephew and adopted
son of Julius Caesar, in 31 BCE. After securing his place as princeps, the first citizen, and wielding
a crippling blow on the ancient Egyptian empire of Cleopatra and her lover Marc Antony, Octavian
went to work laying the foundation of his power base, namely by centralizing his military, political,
economic, and judicial powers. Not only were all these powers centralized in the city of Rome, but
Octavian centralized these powers within himself as the Imperator, the Emperor.299
Early in the second century, the Emperor Hadrian continued the imperial tradition of the
Roman Empire, but fused these traditions with those of the ancient Greeks. Hadrian, himself a
hellenophile (lover of all things Greek), infused new life in the Greek-speaking east by reviving
its economy. This economic rejuvenation allowed for a certain level of Greek independence in the
Peloponnesus, thus giving confidence back to the Greeks, making them feel equal to the their
Roman masters.300 This Greek confidence eventually manifested itself in the person of Diocles, a
Hellenized Illyrian from Dalmatia, modern-day Croatia. After romanizing his name, the Emperor
Diocletian, heirless, adopted his fellow soldier Maximian in 285 CE to succeed him.301 Diocletian
is most remembered for his administrative division of the Roman Empire into the four parts,
commonly referred to as the “Tetrarchy.” In this system, Diocletian ruled as head over all the
Empire, but concerned himself primarily with the eastern half of the empire where he ruled. A
junior emperor, or Augustus, ruled in the West. Both Diocletian and his Augustus each had a junior
emperor, a Caesar (Caesarii in the plural). Diocletian’s tetrarchy was supposed to solve the very
Roman problem of a disorganized and sordid succession, but it proved more troublesome.302
Diocletian knew that the imperial infrastructure was in dire need of reform, considering the
system was over two centuries old and it peaked under the Emperor Trajan in the mid-second
century of the Common Era.303 His division of the Roman Empire along cultural (Greek East, Latin
West) lines, though, proved to be key in the eventual split that brought about the “Byzantine
Empire.” While the administrative split also intended to bring about a clean and orderly succession,
it instead obfuscated the succession and brought about civil war between Maximian, Maximin,
Constantius, Galerius, Licinius, and Constantine.304 In 312 CE, before the battle of Milvian Bridge
in Rome, Constantine claims to have seen a vision of the chi-rho (first two letters of “Christ” in
Greek superimposed upon each other) in the sky. Constantine ordered his soldiers to paint this sign
299
John W. Barker, Justinian and the Later Roman Empire (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1966), viii.
300
Thorsten Opper, Hadrian: Empire and Conflict (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008), 26.
301
Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, 13.
302
Ibid., 14.
303
Peter Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2007), 497.
304
Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, 36.

64
on their shields before going into battle, convinced that Jesus Christ spoke to him, In hoc signo
vinces, “In this sign, conquer.”305 Constantine won the day and saw that the tides of culture already
shifted east. In 324 CE, Constantine moved his capital east to the ancient Greek city of Byzantium,
a strategically-placed city on the Bosporus, literally the bridge between the west (Europe) and east
(Asia). After a massive six-year building campaign, Constantine renamed the city in his honor,
Constantinople, on May 11, 330.306 Constantinople would prove to be the center of a new empire,
fusing the best elements of Greek civilization, Roman political and legal structures, and the
Christian religion. This did not happen quickly, though, as evolution rarely does.
Constantine had many challenges to face, though he consolidated all power within himself.
One way he controlled his newly-relocated empire was through the old Roman doctrine of pater
patriae (“father of the land”). This doctrine communicated the emperor’s role as a father-figure
and protector of, not just the land itself, but its people.307 It was not surprising Constantine
employed this time-tested doctrine for his newly-reformed empire. What is surprising, though, is
that he adapted it to a Christian audience, thus reshaping an already modified doctrine. Therefore,
Constantine was not only the head of the state, but also the protector of the Church. Constantine
took his role of Pater patriae seriously, going so far as to call an ecclesiastical council - the Council
of Nicea - and draw the bishops of the Church together to sort out the Arian heresy.308
After Constantine’s death, he divided the Empire among his three sons, thus leading to
more internal political conflicts. In 395, the co-Emperors Arcadius and Honorius, ruling in the east
and west, respectively, divided the Empire into two administrative units - Greek East and Latin
West. This administrative split was supposed to make the Empire more manageable, but instead
broke it up still further along the old cultural and linguistic fault lines.
The fall of the Roman Empire is usually dated to September 4, 476. The Germanic warrior-
king Odoacer deposed the boy-emperor Romulus Augustulus (Augustulus itself meaning “little
Augustus”) and sent the imperial regalia back to the Emperor Zeno in Constantinople, thus
respecting the traditions of Rome. In so doing, Zeno bestowed upon Odoacer the title of “Patrician”
and Odoacer became the de facto King of Italy.309 In reality, though, while Zeno may have ruled
all of the Empire, it was Odoacer who now ruled the entire West. In essence, the Latin West of the
Roman Empire was all but lost to the East, in politics and in memory. It was not until 527 with
the coronation of Justinian as Emperor of the Romans that the West was thought of again. Justinian
has left historians with a colorful reputation, like marrying Theodora, a former circus performer,
i.e. prostitute. One of his political contributions was to reunite the eastern and western halves of
the Roman Empire.
After many attempts, Belisarius, Justinian’s chief general, reconquered those Western
lands and incorporated them back into the Empire. Throughout his reign, Justinian undertook many
reforms in the whole of his realm to stabilize an already fragile state of affairs. He rewrote the
legal code, republishing it in 534 as the Codex Justinianus.310 Justinian was the last of the
thoroughly “Roman” emperors, being the last to speak Latin as a first language (he barely spoke

305
Eusebius, Eusebius: The Church History, trans. Paul L. Maier (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2007),
305.
306
Norwich, Byzantium, 26.
307
Takács, The Construction of Authority in Ancient Rome and Byzantium, xx.
308
H.W. Crocker III, Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church: A 2,000 Year History (New York:
Three Rivers Press, 2001), 54.
309
Andrew Gillett, "Rome, Ravenna and the Last Western Emperors," Papers of the British School in Rome Vol. 69
(2001): 135, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40311008, (accessed October 28, 2014).
310
Downey, “Justinian as Builder,” 262.

65
Greek) and thinking in a western (i.e. “Roman”) mindset; he died in 565. After a series of four
bumbling emperors, feeling their way through confusion and, more often than not, incompetency,
Heraclius emerged in 610, establishing Greek as the official language of the Empire and giving it
a decidedly Christian direction, being coronated under the protection of Mary, the Mother of
God.311 Constantine may have used Pater patriae as a religious tool when he took over the Empire,
but this ideology was adapted from the secular realm. When Heraclius took over, the shift from a
Roman civilization to a Byzantine civilization had already taken place under his four predecessors,
spurred on by the reforms of Justinian.
Heraclius’ accession to power is nothing short of paradigm-altering, as his reign really
marks the beginning of the Byzantine civilization in Europe. The Roman Church and the plethora
of Germanic and Gaulish tribes transformed the Western half of the Empire to mesh with their
gestalt, though these tribes also thought of themselves as inheritors of Rome’s cultural grandeur.312
Whatever the case in the West may be, the Byzantine civilization can be said to begin under
Heraclius because he promulgated the official use of Greek as the new language of the “Roman
Empire” and because he was coronated under the protection of Mary. These three streams of
thought, the Roman legal and political tradition, Greek culture and language, and the Christian
religion, fused into a new synthesis to create a new empire, the Byzantine, using old Roman
political ideologies, refashioned for a new era. These political, religious, and cultural themes
transmitted an old empire’s ideals for centuries to come.

311
Takács, The Construction of Authority in Ancient Rome and Byzantium, 129.
312
Henri Pirenne, Mohammed & Charlemagne (Mineola, NY: Dover, 2001), 33.

66